Catholic Apologistsgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread |
Ian's question about Catholic apologists:
btw, Emily, and maybe a subject for another thread, but when you say "Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong....." i almost cringed. is he a deacon, priest, monsignor, bishop, archbishop, Pope or Cardinal?if NOT, then,......., (A) why not, and (B) why do we care for his opinions?!?!?!
just a point of view - but maybe worth debating when/if we tire of other subjects. we'll see!
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 04, 2004.
"....Cardinal or Pope..." and apologies to all substantive titular omissions.-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 04, 2004.
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), October 05, 2004
I am not sure that clerical status should determine whether we listen to someone's opinion. After all, many competent laypeople teach in seminaries. There are also some clerical wackos. A layperson can establish a ministry and not be under the direct jurisdiction of a bishop, which could raise some concern.Personally, I think Dave Armstrong is quite competent in the field of apologetics.
-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), October 04, 2004.
Hi Ian, I'm sort of at a loss as to why you would cringe at the term "apologist." If you are a Catholic, you are called to be an "apologist," that is, to be ready, willing and able to defend your faith, should you be asked to do so.Dave Amstrong is a very good Catholic apologist, along with many others. There are also some very good Catholic apologists that float around these quarters as well, John Gecik, Paul M, quickly come to mind, along with many others.
God Bless,
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), October 04, 2004.
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), October 05, 2004.
OKi did say that it was "just a point of view" so maybe you can start by pointing out where the Church has taught that lay people can make a living from apologetics when most of the ordained and religious do the opposite.
that's a start, i suppose.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 04, 2004.
PS Paul M is a deaconPPS JFG does not earn a living (i stand to be corrected) from apologetics. he does it [expertly] for a love of God.
PPPS you MUST understand my point - unappointed "pastors", flitting in and out with their own agendas. we have the Church. we have our priests etc. you must at least be able to understand the point i am making -- preliminarily at this juncture.
PPPPS you might dreg through the Church Fathers and shew me that certain of them were "lay people making their living from Apologetics"; but i doubt very much that you could ever do that. and i make that point from a position of weakness because it is a mere hunch.
PPPPPS we can start a thread if you like.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 04, 2004.
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), October 05, 2004.
Sorry for the poorly formatted thread. I didn't want the other one to go off topic.Ian, as for the topic of apologists, I had not thought of it before. I will say, however, that their work has been an immense blessing in my life and even moreso in my Mom's, and instrumental in the conversion process for both of us.
Do you have any Scriptures that support your view? Perhaps we could make a post on the Catholic Answers' "Ask an Apologist" site requesting their view on this issue, sort of like giving the apologists a chance to defend themselves. If you go that route, be sure to follow their specific rules for questions, and make the question clear and concise, or it will be rejected. I have posted probably 3 or 4 questions to them, all of which I thought were suitable, and none were posted. They have a lot of volume I guess.
-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), October 05, 2004.
Emilyi gave up on the Catholic forum some time ago, for reasons that i will not explain here.
suffice to say, i do go there now and then and very very occasionally i might even post.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 06, 2004.
Emilywhat about "cheat sheets"?
i am struggling to verbalise my discontent. however, i am wary of people getting rich doing this. i am wary that it becomes a game that survives by tribalism, hence the cheat sheets. i see that a bad priest, such as Kung, can be disciplined in some way; whereas the Church can do less about a bad lay apologist.
i also have an instinct that, if allowed to develop unchecked, the lay apologist will pretty soon challenge the priest and before you know it, we have a second wave of protestantism as apologists become preachers.
i do see the good in writers such as Lewis and Belloc, but i think they are somewhat different to the modern apologist sitting in debate and trying to win technical arguments.
a little stream of consciousness that might help me clarify my concerns.
you might see something in what i say; you might not.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 06, 2004.
Personally, I think lay apologists (both professional and amateurs) are a good thing, but the faithful need to be cautious. I believe I see your point, Ian.In fact I have some concerns about myself making posts in forums like this. I'm certainly no apologist, but I worry about saying something I think is Catholic teaching, when it isn't, and leading someone astray. I pray that I never do this. And I depend on others like yourself to correct me when I get it wrong.
How do we know the opinion of any apologist (either lay or religious) is valid? The only thing we can do I guess is double check them and determine who's trustworthy and who's not. Gotta check those sources.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 06, 2004.
well you have the "imprimatur" and "nihil obstat" when it comes to books.how thorough the related examination is - is beyond me.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 06, 2004.
Just ask Faith. I think she is "U.L." endorsed. Just kidding!..................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 06, 2004.
"you might see something in what i say; you might not."Do you mean this Ian... that anyone who in any way profits from their Catholicism in terms of the goods of this world, whether it be money, or status, or the esteem of others, or any earthly success, can be said to be following in the footsteps of the saints who before them walked the narrow path, rejecting the things of this world, and welcoming rejection by this world?
If that's what you mean, then yeah sure. That's gotta be right. I mean, we have the Blessed Sacrament, right, and the Holy Rosary and the principles of the Catholic Faith?
What more do we need. And those things, we've always had them available to us, without the intercession of Catholic apologists. Certainly knowledge of these things has always been available without the medium of those in the lay apologetics market. I refer to them as the Lay Magisterium. They put themselves in that position at their own risk. It's a risk I would not take. Eternal life is serious business.
We have, what, nothing less than the Holy Family as the model. St. Joseph was no lime-lighter but a silent servant, Mary sought a hidden existence and Christ hides himself now under the appearance of bread and wine. That's a whole lot of humility for a King, a Queen, and a high court servant. It speaks volumes about the nature of the game.
-- Emerald (em@none.nett), October 07, 2004.
"...that anyone who in any way profits from..."Alright, change the "anyone" to "no one". You probably knew what I meant to say, but just in case.
-- Emerald (em@none.nett), October 07, 2004.
Emeraldi posted on a hunch and, therefore, with some hesitation. i am unaware of teaching that touches on this issue (though it might exist). however, your post strikes a real chord and expresses an otherwise gut-feeling very well.
i would add that i am in no position to opine on any particular Catholic apologist - and it must be a good thing if such apologists lead people back to the Church. i just wonder, however, if as many are led the other way in the "apologetics market"?
the point on "Lay Magisterium" is well made.
as with many things, we shall see what the future brings. i remain skeptical.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 07, 2004.
I think that we all have to be concerned about opportunism in our faith based activities, and this is not necessarily limited to laypeople. Andrew Greeley makes millions of dollars off some of his books and he is a member of the clergy. Primerica, a financial services corporation, encourages its financial reps to join a church as a means to recruit clients. Clearly, the church can be used as a means to fulfill our sinful desires. If we approach our faith correctly, laypeople as well as clergy can be quite effective in spreading and defending the faith.I hope that wasn't too incoherent.
-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), October 07, 2004.
"Andrew Greeley makes millions of dollars off some of his books and he is a member of the clergy"yikes.
what does this mean?!?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 07, 2004.
Gee, I guess it means that if you are an exceptionally talented writer and also happen to be a priest, you have to give your books away for free.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 07, 2004.
sarcasm and thinly veiled contempt were never what i would have expected from someone ordained. you are a role model for us all.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 08, 2004.
Jamesthat a cracking twist in the tale.
i have never ever heard of the guy - and the incredible part is this.
how does this guy say Mass, attend the sick, poor and imprisoned, hear Confessions, say all the prayers that a priest will say through the day, ....., and so in, especially given the shortage of clergy - and still have time to write 20 best-sellers.
ALL priests i now have barely enough time to eat let alone write, market and promote books that are quasi-religious.
i'm going to research this guy on the net.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 08, 2004.
Andrew Greeley is an apostasized Catholic priest. I pray that he can un-make his bed before he has to lie in it.
-- jake (j@k.e), October 08, 2004.
well.my research continues.
he seems pretty "left-wing" but he did write this:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/54/story_5400_1.html#cont
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 09, 2004.
and this is clever:"I take abortion complaints seriously only from those who also oppose the death penalty, which the Republicans don't. Taking a human life means taking a human life, whether it be of a baby in its mother's womb or of a convict on death row. Moreover, despite all the hoopla, abortion is not a real issue in this election because the Supreme Court is never going to reverse Roe v. Wade, its 1973 decision upholding a woman's constitutional right to choose the procedure."
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 09, 2004.
i have read the article linked by j@ke and i have to say that i think there is some real tit-for-tat going on there.first, the criticism of Greeley lies when it says that he terms the Incarnation and Crucifixion as "metaphorical". the "metaphor" that Greeley actually mentions is the one used by Gibson in an interview - that Jesus had to open the gates of Heaven again by dying. Greeley's point is that the source of this metaphor is St Anselm and that St Anselm treatise is wrong because it regards God as demanding a price for our redemption whereas we know that it was a gift doen by God out of love.
IOW, Greeley is not attacking the Passion in this sense, nor is he actually attacking Gibson; rather he is point out the error of St Anselm. i am not sure why he had to make the point - its really just a dig - but it could well be correct and its certainly not the point the criticism suggests he made.
on a related point, when Greeley mentions an implacably forgiving God, he is clealry being ironic - would the God that we know loves act out of revenge or love. he is not arguing for universal salvation even though that is most likely what he believes.
the article is therefore shoddy at best, or malicious at worst.
the criticism also seems to get it wrong when it mentions God's "suffering". the article takes issue with the notion of God suffering. if God loves us, then he simply MUST suffer. suffering is the effect of love. is indifference the opposite of love or is it hate? i sya both in equal measures. if he is indifferent to our sins, how can He love us.
however, i *suspect* Greeley goes too far when he says that God dies when we die - but i am 100% sure that he cannot literally believe what he writes. its an ill-chosen metaphor, however, and probably little else.
where the criticism does seem most warranted is when it mentions that Greeley redefines original sin as "fear of our own mortality". i have never heard that one before. that sounds man-made to me. the world according to Greeley.
i think both articles are biased and self-serving - and in truth pretty unChristian. nothing however in this particluar piece of Greeley's writing supports the notion that he is an apostate. that's a serious allegation that is just not made out by the critical article.
...which leads me back to the point of this thread - and i keep coming back to Emerald's words, and especially these:
"St. Joseph was no lime-lighter but a silent servant, Mary sought a hidden existence and Christ hides himself now under the appearance of bread and wine. That's a whole lot of humility for a King, a Queen, and a high court servant. It speaks volumes about the nature of the game. "
Greeley is a celebrity who courts celebrity. Armstrong is a celebrity who courts celebrity. they make money from the "Religion Industry".
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 09, 2004.
to make matters worse, i think Greeley was wrong on St Anselm - by my reading it is orthodox (assuming i am reading the right piece).perhaps the article could have said that rather than suggesting that Greeley regarded the Incarnation and Atonement as metaphorical.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), October 09, 2004.
This is my fist post here so please bear with me.. I have read some of what these apologists have to say, and quite often they are trying to defend some of the damage of Vatican two, as much as anything else. It is a difficult and(at least to me), an impossible job. It is like trying to hide an elephant in a refrigerator.
-- Tanya (littletanya@westernrt.com), October 19, 2004.
Welcome Tanya.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 19, 2004.
They also differentiate between the supposed damage "of" Vatican II vs. the extensive damage TO the teachings of Vatican II by modernist factions who have twisted, rejected, or simply ignored that teaching.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 19, 2004.
Readers,
Unfortunately this forum closed due to maintence problems with the server.
If you are interested in continuing a discussion, you can go to this board:
http://p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum
Or try our URL Forwarder www.bluespun.com
This was our back up board, but now we all relocated here.
Hope to see you there! All links lead to the same place!
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@gmail.com), November 28, 2005.
Yes, that is a very important distinction Paul. Thanks.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), October 19, 2004.